| Ann Smith and CTA tactics Around the year 2000, California Teachers Association (CTA), which is controlled by its executive director Carolyn Doggett and its chief counsel Beverly tucker, developed a policy of expanded cooperation with school districts in some areas--including allowing School districts to violate the law against teachers--apparently in order to expand influence of CTA at district level. This policy had disastrous effect on Castle Park Elementary in CVESD. (At about the same time, Ann Smith's unhealthy cooperation with San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy was having even more disastrous effects on San Diego.) Maura Larkins wrote the following letter to CTA President Wayne Johnson to let him know about Ann Smith's unethical conduct. It didn't bother him one bit. |
January 26, 2002
To: Wayne Johnson
From: Maura Larkins
I’m concerned about a possible conflict of interest.
I was under the impression that my meeting on
January 11 with attorney Ann Smith might lead to
her representing me.
Is she one of the “two lawyers” Tim has consulted
with? She did not tell me that.
If she is, she has already taken positions against
me. How could she advise me fairly?
Had Ann Smith previously advised Tim not to
advocate for me vis a vis the School District
regarding violations of the contract? Had she
helped concoct
justifications for your and Beverly Tucker’s
decision not to advocate for me?
If so, there is a serious problem--a violation of
legal professional ethics has occurred. I was
brought into Ann Smith’s office on January 11,
2002 under the impression that I was meeting a
lawyer who might sue the district on my behalf!
Ann Smith asked me a lot of questions about my
case. I never would have gone to the meeting if I
had known that she had been supporting CTA’s
positions
against me.
P.S. I am enclosing my correspondence with Ms.
Smith. My first letter to her certainly touched a
nerve! She apparently became extremely
emotional. She
claimed (falsely) that I called her a “liar” in my
letter! (Both my letter and her letter are
attached.) She also accused me of being
dishonest! Honesty is my strong suit so she didn’t
succeed in touching a nerve in me. My words are
the complete truth.
Maura Larkins
To: Wayne Johnson
From: Maura Larkins
I’m concerned about a possible conflict of interest.
I was under the impression that my meeting on
January 11 with attorney Ann Smith might lead to
her representing me.
Is she one of the “two lawyers” Tim has consulted
with? She did not tell me that.
If she is, she has already taken positions against
me. How could she advise me fairly?
Had Ann Smith previously advised Tim not to
advocate for me vis a vis the School District
regarding violations of the contract? Had she
helped concoct
justifications for your and Beverly Tucker’s
decision not to advocate for me?
If so, there is a serious problem--a violation of
legal professional ethics has occurred. I was
brought into Ann Smith’s office on January 11,
2002 under the impression that I was meeting a
lawyer who might sue the district on my behalf!
Ann Smith asked me a lot of questions about my
case. I never would have gone to the meeting if I
had known that she had been supporting CTA’s
positions
against me.
P.S. I am enclosing my correspondence with Ms.
Smith. My first letter to her certainly touched a
nerve! She apparently became extremely
emotional. She
claimed (falsely) that I called her a “liar” in my
letter! (Both my letter and her letter are
attached.) She also accused me of being
dishonest! Honesty is my strong suit so she didn’t
succeed in touching a nerve in me. My words are
the complete truth.
Maura Larkins
| Michael Aguirre, San Diego's City Attorney who is trying to reform a city whose leaders' actions caused it to be dubbed Enron by the Sea, recently deposed attorney Ann Smith. To those of us who know Ann Smith, it's no surprise that her deposition went nowhere until Judge Barton agreed to oversee the deposition in his chambers. Here's a snippet from Mike Aguirre's blog, which can be reached from the City Attorney website: "Tuesday morning, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey B. Barton granted our request that the pension case deposition of Municipal Employee Association (MEA) attorney Ann Smith take place in his chambers, under his supervision, so that he can preside over the taking of her deposition. The deposition will continue Wednesday, August 23, in Superior Court Department #69, at 9 a.m." Mr. Aguirre soon caught Ann Smith and her client Judie Italiano contradicting each other. Which one do you believe? Or could it be that neither one is truthful? Here is Aguirre's blog for August 21, 2006: "Last week Municipal Employee Association (MEA) attorney Ann M. Smith and MEA president Judie Italiano gave conflicting testimony. Earlier this year, Ms. Smith testified in the preliminary criminal hearing for the former pension trustees who have been charged by the District Attorney. She swore, under oath, that former City Manager Michael Uberuaga had communicated to the MEA on the afternoon of 11 July 2002 (the day the pension board approved Manager's Proposal 2), that the City had "abandoned" the requirement that the Board approve the City's plan to underfund the pension before certain of the board members could get higher benefits. |
| MEA San Diego Metropolitan Employees Association Judie Italiano |
| Lawsuit against CVE for perjury and destruction of documents |
| Ann Smith and Chula Vista Educators (CVE) San Diego employment lawyer Ann M. Smith, infamous for her close association to MEA's Judie Italiano and the criminal pension deal that turned San Diego into "Enron by the Sea," represented CTA operative Tim O'Neill and Chula Vista Educators in January 2002 in the Maura Larkins case. Tim O'Neill and current and former CVE presidents Jim Groth and Gina Boyd were covering up multiple violations of law against CVE member Maura Larkins. The illegal actions had been initiated by now-infamous teacher Robin Donlan. Attorney Smith welcomed Maura Larkins into her office under the pretext that she might sue Chula Vista Elementary School District for its illegal actions against Larkins. |
| Voice of San Diego letter to the editor regarding pension reform comment by Point Loma Resident July 10, 2008 "Victoria...there's never been, & never will be, an unemployment problem within the City's ranks, so why would we need to pay more? We paid more compensation to the President of SEDC and look what that extra compensation got us...more corruption, not more competence!" |
| But in a Hotsheet bulletin sent to MEA members the next day, Ms. Italiano told her membership the condition had been "met" -- not "abandoned," as claimed by Ms. Smith in her sworn testimony in the current D.A. criminal case. |
| Last Friday Ms. Smith testified in her deposition that Ms. Italiano's Hotsheet was wrong. A hearing regarding Ms. Smith's deposition will be held in Superior Court Judge Jeffrey B. Barton's chambers on Tuesday, August 22, at 9 a.m. |
| Paying more sometimes brings more corruption, not more competence |
| Maura Larkins' letter to CTA President Wayne Johnson regarding Ann Smith tactics |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ann Marie Smith - #120733
Current Status: Active
Address Tosdal Smith Steiner & Wax
401 W 'A' St #320
San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone
Number (619) 239-7200
Fax Number (619) 239-6048
District District 9
Undergraduate School No
Information Available;
County San Diego Law School
Monterey COL;
Monterey CA
12/16/1985 Admitted to The State
Bar of California
Current Status: Active
Address Tosdal Smith Steiner & Wax
401 W 'A' St #320
San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone
Number (619) 239-7200
Fax Number (619) 239-6048
District District 9
Undergraduate School No
Information Available;
County San Diego Law School
Monterey COL;
Monterey CA
12/16/1985 Admitted to The State
Bar of California
January 17, 2002
To: Ann Smith
From: Maura Larkins
I'm writing to confirm some elements of our meeting of
January 11, 2002.
You said that the district has no obligation to pay me. I
said I believed you, and that I couldn't think of any
reason you would lie to me. (I now think I was wrong on
both counts.)
I had been led to understand that you were a private
attorney who would take legal action against the district
on my behalf if legally appropriate. I understood that
CTA would pay for the first hour of consultation, and that
I would pay for all other hours worked unless CTA made
a special arrangement. I had been told by Tim that at
least half of my one-hour consultation with you would be
private.
You told me that I had to go back to work even though
my safety is at risk, and even though the district has
violated the contract and the law and basic standards of
decency in my case with total impunity, and even though
CVE refuses to either enforce the contract or to address
the district's egregious behavior in another manner. You
said if I were damaged again after I went back to work, I
should grieve again. It should be noted that you said
this with a straight face.
I am wondering exactly what, if anything, the district might
possibly do to me that would induce CVE to go to
arbitration on my behalf.
You made a point of questioning Tim in a loud voice as
to when the contract had expired. But I asked Tim if
there was an MOU (memorandum of understanding), and
he said, "yes." So the contract is still in force. I'm
wondering if one of the reasons for not going to bat for
me is political. Politics is how CTA got into this mess in
the first place. Gina didn't want to ruffle the feathers of
my accusers right before her reelection. In fact, she kept
stroking them with phone conversations and concessions
when she had no business taking the side of one
teacher against another. I was ordered by CTA to "be
quiet" about what had been done to me. Now history
repeats itself. This time CTA doesn't want to ruffle the
district's feathers. The contract is a point of pride--the
more money CTA gets in the contract, the better it looks.
But why would it work so hard for a contract that it won't
enforce? Because CTA only cares about how it looks on
the outside, not about the moral decay within. It thinks
that the world will never know the truth. It thinks that it
can keep its true portrait hidden, like Dorian's Gray's. It
thinks it can destroy one innocent teacher for the
financial gain of other teachers (and increased dues!),
without anyone ever questioning its ethics.
You asked me questions about my sick leave. I don't
think I gave you the answers you were looking for. You
were all set to write down my words, but you seemed
unhappy with them, and ceased writing.
I informed you and Tim that my benefits had been
cancelled in November, TWO DAYS after I filed
grievances. This action was clearly retaliatory. It
occurred two and a half MONTHS after my pay was
stopped. It was a bolt out of the blue.
I informed you and Tim that my June 9 grievance
received no response from the district, and my May 29
grievance received no Level II response. I had waived
time lines for responding to these grievances until
November 21, so I should have received responses on
December 3. Tim denied repeatedly that this was true,
although he had received copies of all grievances and all
district responses. Then Tim said that the district denies
all my grievances anyway, so what difference does it
make?
I said that it would increase my trust in Tim if he would
insist that the district obey JUST ONE SMALL PART OF
THE CONTRACT. Apparently you and Tim have decided
not to enforce any part of the contract.
I think it's not only wrong, it's foolish to continue to violate
the principles that CTA stands for.
To: Ann Smith
From: Maura Larkins
I'm writing to confirm some elements of our meeting of
January 11, 2002.
You said that the district has no obligation to pay me. I
said I believed you, and that I couldn't think of any
reason you would lie to me. (I now think I was wrong on
both counts.)
I had been led to understand that you were a private
attorney who would take legal action against the district
on my behalf if legally appropriate. I understood that
CTA would pay for the first hour of consultation, and that
I would pay for all other hours worked unless CTA made
a special arrangement. I had been told by Tim that at
least half of my one-hour consultation with you would be
private.
You told me that I had to go back to work even though
my safety is at risk, and even though the district has
violated the contract and the law and basic standards of
decency in my case with total impunity, and even though
CVE refuses to either enforce the contract or to address
the district's egregious behavior in another manner. You
said if I were damaged again after I went back to work, I
should grieve again. It should be noted that you said
this with a straight face.
I am wondering exactly what, if anything, the district might
possibly do to me that would induce CVE to go to
arbitration on my behalf.
You made a point of questioning Tim in a loud voice as
to when the contract had expired. But I asked Tim if
there was an MOU (memorandum of understanding), and
he said, "yes." So the contract is still in force. I'm
wondering if one of the reasons for not going to bat for
me is political. Politics is how CTA got into this mess in
the first place. Gina didn't want to ruffle the feathers of
my accusers right before her reelection. In fact, she kept
stroking them with phone conversations and concessions
when she had no business taking the side of one
teacher against another. I was ordered by CTA to "be
quiet" about what had been done to me. Now history
repeats itself. This time CTA doesn't want to ruffle the
district's feathers. The contract is a point of pride--the
more money CTA gets in the contract, the better it looks.
But why would it work so hard for a contract that it won't
enforce? Because CTA only cares about how it looks on
the outside, not about the moral decay within. It thinks
that the world will never know the truth. It thinks that it
can keep its true portrait hidden, like Dorian's Gray's. It
thinks it can destroy one innocent teacher for the
financial gain of other teachers (and increased dues!),
without anyone ever questioning its ethics.
You asked me questions about my sick leave. I don't
think I gave you the answers you were looking for. You
were all set to write down my words, but you seemed
unhappy with them, and ceased writing.
I informed you and Tim that my benefits had been
cancelled in November, TWO DAYS after I filed
grievances. This action was clearly retaliatory. It
occurred two and a half MONTHS after my pay was
stopped. It was a bolt out of the blue.
I informed you and Tim that my June 9 grievance
received no response from the district, and my May 29
grievance received no Level II response. I had waived
time lines for responding to these grievances until
November 21, so I should have received responses on
December 3. Tim denied repeatedly that this was true,
although he had received copies of all grievances and all
district responses. Then Tim said that the district denies
all my grievances anyway, so what difference does it
make?
I said that it would increase my trust in Tim if he would
insist that the district obey JUST ONE SMALL PART OF
THE CONTRACT. Apparently you and Tim have decided
not to enforce any part of the contract.
I think it's not only wrong, it's foolish to continue to violate
the principles that CTA stands for.
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
| MEA attorney Ann Smith has always before had plenty to say when Judie Italiano, MEA President and, later, MEA manager, had a problem. Judie and Ann seemed to be an inseparable pair. So where is Ann Smith now that Judie has resigned? Italiano Out, Union Probe Forwarded to DA Voice of San Diego By RANI GUPTA May 29, 2009 Three years ago, the head of City Hall's largest union became embroiled in a controversy over charging thousands of dollars at casinos, department stores, and other shops on her official credit cards. Judie Italiano and her supporters fended off a challenge to her leadership and pooh-poohed an investigation by then-City Attorney Mike Aguirre, saying she had nothing to hide. On Friday the Municipal Employees Association board announced that Italiano had resigned [click here for letter from board to members] after the organization started an investigation into her personal use of the union's credit cards, which she stopped only briefly after the charges came to light in 2006, according to union President Tony Ruiz. Union officials also have referred the matter to the District Attorney's Office to see if criminal charges are warranted, Ruiz said. The resignation marks a dramatic end for the career of a long-time City Hall fixture who defiantly defended both her union and her own actions as the city's financial problems and pension scandal unfolded this decade. Ruiz said Italiano was put on leave May 12 when the new charges were discovered and resigned in the midst of the investigation. She cut the union a check for $13,903, covering credit card charges, interest and vacation time that Italiano had taken but not yet accrued, he said. Related Links MEA Letter to Members (pdf) Union Battle Turns Inward (Aug. 29, 2006) Suit Filed Against Italiano (May 6) The Hall: A Blog on Local Politics |
| "In sum, Ann, what were you thinking?" |
The union also has no plans to drop a lawsuit against the pension
system alleging Italiano has a right to a pension despite a
determination that the act giving her a city pension violated federal
tax regulations.
[Maura Larkins' note: It would seem that Ann Smith is still
hard at work, striving to fill Judie Italiano's pockets with
public money.]
After Italiano's credit card charges came to light in 2006, the union changed its policies to
prohibit personal use of the union credit cards and Italiano agreed to pay back the money
she had charged, Ruiz said. Previously, he said, there was an informal arrangement
allowing use of the cards as long as personal charges were paid back.
Ruiz said Italiano stopped charging personal expenses on her card for a while but
resumed making personal charges starting in November 2006 and continuing through
February 2009. Ruiz said he discovered the charges while preparing his first budget as
board president...
system alleging Italiano has a right to a pension despite a
determination that the act giving her a city pension violated federal
tax regulations.
[Maura Larkins' note: It would seem that Ann Smith is still
hard at work, striving to fill Judie Italiano's pockets with
public money.]
After Italiano's credit card charges came to light in 2006, the union changed its policies to
prohibit personal use of the union credit cards and Italiano agreed to pay back the money
she had charged, Ruiz said. Previously, he said, there was an informal arrangement
allowing use of the cards as long as personal charges were paid back.
Ruiz said Italiano stopped charging personal expenses on her card for a while but
resumed making personal charges starting in November 2006 and continuing through
February 2009. Ruiz said he discovered the charges while preparing his first budget as
board president...
| "We were all taken in by Judie," Ruiz said. "She [said] she would not be doing this type of behavior anymore. We put these policies in place and she agreed to these policies, and she breached our trust." [Maura Larkins' note: I'm not sure I believe you, Mr. Ruiz. I think I believe Bud Simpson: "Judie pretty much had the board of directors eating out of her hand," Simpson said. "She's done a pretty good job for them and, as a result, she makes sure she has the executive committee handpicked." Simpson added that the general membership didn't appear to care. "Just as long as you take care of us, we'll forgive minor indiscretions," he said.] |
| More on internal disagreements in the MEA Union Battle Turns Inward By SAM HODGSON Voice Staff Writer Voice of San Diego Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006 | The labor union that has long been at the heart of the city’s ongoing financial struggles is quietly suffering one of its most divisive internal battles in the organization’s 80-year history. With its leaders already heading up the opposition to City Attorney Mike Aguirre, the more than 6,000-member Municipal Employees Association is facing what former president Judie Italiano describes as "the first contentious election this organization has had since its inception in 1926." And the battle comes complete with all the catch words of the city's larger political struggle: allegations of corruption, a lack of transparency and personal attacks. Italiano stepped down as president earlier this year after more than two decades. But she remains the face of the organization and its manager. She has become the focus of criticisms by former Vice President Linda French and a slate of self-proclaimed reformists who are attempting to oust interim President John Torres and the rest of the MEA’s executive council. At a time when financial and political crises have split City Hall along strict factional lines, the discontent sowed by the city's high-profile problems has trickled down into the very organizations fighting the battles. But this struggle isn't about court cases and retirement benefits. It's about French and Italiano. Related Links Archives: Italiano Steps Down (May 11, 2006) Both sides believe in the battle to preserve their pension benefits, which has become a centerpiece of City Hall life as Aguirre aggressively pursues a rollback of a decade's worth of employee benefit boosts. If he succeeds, all MEA members could see their future pension checks chopped down considerably. Then there's a third party: those white-collar city workers who want nothing to do with the union or its politics, saying they don't get much for their dues. "I don’t want to be a part of it anyway," said Keith Strehle, an employee in the Wastewater Department, "whether Linda French or anyone else is running it." French v. Italiano French criticizes the pension underfunding that set off much of the city's unrest and is a key culprit in a pension deficit that's estimated to be $1.4 billion. She says the action, which required union acquiescence, damaged the credibility of city workers. However, she agrees with Italiano on one point: Both defend the challenged legality of employee's retirement benefits. Both vow to protect them. "What’s done is done, and now we’ve got to move on with it," French said. "Rolling them back is going to be a big mistake for everyone." French blames those mistakes in part on Torres, who is one of six city employees facing criminal conflict-of-interest charges, accused of underfunding the city’s pension system in exchange for increasing benefits of employees -- including his own. Torres served on the pension board when it approved a controversial 2002 pension funding agreement. Recently, she highlighted Torres’ pending court battle by posting a note on her website titled “Kroll Report Details Misconduct of John Torres and Others that Lead to Financial Crisis.” The message takes excerpts from the 18-month investigation into City Hall that she says implicate Torres in violating state conflict of interest laws in the underfunding of the city’s pension system. She also cites a section that defends the legality of the benefits. "According to the Kroll Report, we will be able to retain our pension benefits," she goes on to say, "not because of our leadership but despite them." Italiano too has long been a leading voice in the fight to maintain the pension benefits. She frequently spars with Aguirre over the legality of the benefits and says that it is in the best interest of employees to support someone for office who runs on an original platform, rather than simply attacking their opponents. French’s campaign calls into question Italiano’s leadership and integrity, saying she is the root of the union’s problems, and that she is the puppet master that pulls the strings of President John Torres. Italiano has also faced accusations of nepotism this year for using the union to employ her family members. Her husband, Jeff Carr and brother-in-law Brian Balla both work in MEA’s labor relations office. Her grandson, Ryan McWilliams also works for MEA, doing what spokesperson Cathleen Higgins described as "grunt work." Italiano says that French is launching an attack campaign with no real platform other than cutting down the current leaders of the organization. "I don’t want to respond to [the criticisms] because they’re a bunch of garbage, half-truths and lies that are really damaging to this organization," Italiano said. "What she’s doing is tearing down the line of defense that most employees rely on. She’s damaging the very organization she says she wants to protect." Meanwhile, Italiano said that French’s campaign against Torres may be a bit premature. He has not yet announced his candidacy for office, and Italiano said he may not do so. "I don’t know that John Torres is going to run," Italiano said. "He’s been talking to people to see if it’s right. “Linda has already come out in the worst kind of betrayal possible by throwing John’s reality of his trial out and trying to discredit him. It’s not working. Many of the employees see him as the martyr for their retirement.” Not My Union Every time Ed Harris gets a paycheck, he looks at it and sees deductions. Most of them he doesn’t mind paying -- its part of his duty as an American and a San Diegan. Federal income tax and Social Security -- no problem. State income tax and Medicare -- all in a day’s work. Municipal Employee Association dues? "I’m pissed," Harris said. "Because I just paid for a service that isn’t being rendered." Harris is one city employee who doesn’t mind going on the record to speak out against the more than-6,000 member union and its current leadership. Since 2004, all city employees have been required by state law to pay union fees whether they chose to be a member or not. Many of the employees, such as Harris, opt to become voluntary members, meaning they pay about $1.50 more per period than involuntary members and receive the right to vote and attend MEA events. He said he still pays the fee simply for the right to vote. Harris wants to see French in office because he thinks that Italiano and Torres have damaged the credibility of his union. "The citizens of San Diego need to see that the union is making a change in order to regain their support," he said. Still, some employees, such as Strehle, who has worked in the city’s Wastewater Department for more than a decade, don’t care who leads their union and don’t want to be a part of the MEA in the first place. "I call it extortion," Strehle said of the requirement to pay union fees. "And I’ve told them that." Employees such as Strehle have $18.16 deducted from their biweekly paycheck. Voluntary members such as Harris pay $19.64. Italiano recognizes that some employees in the union are upset. She blames the union's infighting on people like Aguirre, who has led the charge to have the workers’ benefits rolled back. "I think he’s set a tone for our city that isn't the kindest and gentlest," Italiano said. "I think that has now trickled down into our union." Strehle is not fazed by Aguirre’s attempts to have the benefit boosts undone, however, and says it's all part of normal court proceedings. "I think that if the court rules that they’re illegal, then so be it," Strehle said. "I don’t think that’s going to happen because of the repercussions of the litigation, they’re just going to let it slide. "I guess I kind of shoot myself in the foot by saying that. Maybe I’m a little too loyal to the cause of the city. But, at some point, people should be willing to give a little back. Maybe that’s a little too noble, but that’s just how I feel." |
| Attorney Ann M. Smith |
| CVE Chula Vista Elementary Education Association |
Michael Zucchet, a former city councilman who has been consulting
for MEA, is acting as general manager while the organization seeks a
permanent replacement.
for MEA, is acting as general manager while the organization seeks a
permanent replacement.
Ruiz said Italiano received no severance pay as part of her departure and was not fired
because she resigned before the investigation was finished. Italiano will also keep a car
the union bought for her, which Zucchet said was not a company car and was given to
Italiano previously as part of her compensation.
because she resigned before the investigation was finished. Italiano will also keep a car
the union bought for her, which Zucchet said was not a company car and was given to
Italiano previously as part of her compensation.
Linda French, who brought many of the allegations to light when she
campaigned for MEA president in 2006, believes board members are also
culpable for wasting hard-earned member dues.
"I look at them as an accessory after the fact, and that's what we've been
talking about all along," she said.
This month, French filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Italiano as MEA's
general manager. The other plaintiff was Ed Harris, who is leading a push
to remove the lifeguards from MEA and join the Teamsters. Harris said he
felt MEA's announcement vindicated his concerns and hoped that
prosecutors who have previously been referred evidence of Italiano's
deeds would now file charges against her.
In September 2006, a confidential investigation by Aguirre, recently
obtained by voiceofsandiego.org, detailed allegations against Italiano, in
which former employees said Italiano had used MEA funds for personal
loans to her relatives and staff, used union money to buy property and
funded trips to Las Vegas and the races.
Bud Simpson, a former MEA employee who now lives in Idaho, was among
those questioned for Aguirre's report, which was reportedly sent to the
District Attorney's Office and the state attorney general but never resulted
in charges.
In an interview earlier this month, Simpson told voiceofsandiego.org that
the MEA office staff went to Las Vegas for his birthday and frequently
made trips for others' birthdays. He said Italiano's power within the
organization allowed her to misuse cards with impunity.
"Judie pretty much had the board of directors eating out of her
hand," Simpson said. "She's done a pretty good job for them and,
as a result, she makes sure she has the executive committee
handpicked."
Simpson added that the general membership didn't appear to care.
"Just as long as you take care of us, we'll forgive minor
indiscretions," he said.
Simpson was fired in 2003, a move he said made way for Italiano to hire
her husband, Jeff Carr. Ruiz said there's no cause to terminate Carr
because he's not accused of wrongdoing but said the organization is
"coming to an agreement" on terms of his separation from MEA.
Likewise, Ruiz said there's no cause to end the union's relationship with
Italiano's son, who will continue to provide health benefits to members...
| Shortly before Italiano resigned, MEA members Linda French and Ed Harris filed a lawsuit against her. LINK |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report